CLINTON'S RISK: POLITICAL WOES PUT HIM ON SHAKY GROUND

President Clinton tried in clear, succinct and careful language Wednesday to make his case to the American people about the aims of the Kosovo mission -- just as he had done Monday and Tuesday.

"Our strikes have three objectives," he told reporters shortly after the raids began Wednesday afternoon.

He then listed his points, one sentence at a time, like a teacher reviewing the lesson for an exam.

"First," Clinton said, "to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's opposition to aggression and its support for peace.

"Second, to deter (Yugoslav President Slobodan) Milosevic from continuing and escalating his attacks on helpless civilians by imposing a price for those attacks.

"And third," he concluded, "if necessary, to damage Serbia's capacity to wage war against Kosovo in the future by seriously diminishing its military capabilities."

His five-minute statement and, in the evening, his nationally televised address were typical of the genre: The leader of the free world and commander-in-chief offers his case, and then Americans instantly rally around him.

Sure enough, minutes after the bombing began, Republican Party Chairman Jim Nicholson got in front of the line. "The time for debate is over," he said. "The time for prayer has begun."

But there's a soft underbelly to this support as Clinton launches the first military strike of the post-impeachment era. After all, the man behind the mission spent much of the last year charged with lying under oath.

As a result, said L. Sandy Maisel, professor of government at Colby College in Maine, "Republicans, and some Democrats, still view his declarations cautiously. They are less likely to take the president at his word as they would have been before."

Before the air raids, most Republicans and some Democrats wondered out loud how much credibility Clinton would have and whether people would believe him as the mission continued and he reported on its progress.

In a few days, everyone will find out.

Criticisms

Just before the strike, hunting season was on. While not directly questioning Clinton's ability to lead, critics instead expressed their dismay through euphemisms.

Former Vice President Dan Quayle, a likely 2000 presidential candidate, said Clinton needed to "advance basic values that have withstood the test of time," and former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander reminded audiences, "We build credibility by saying what we mean and meaning what we say."

What was striking about these comments was their tone. It is hardly unusual to disagree over foreign policy, even on the eve of military action. But those disagreements usually involve a mission's worth, not the president's authority.

This, though, is a different president. Clinton has always been a flashpoint for Republicans, who, even after six years, have trouble accepting his legitimacy. The 13-month-long sex scandal only fueled their anger.

"A lot of Republicans just don't like Bill Clinton, and it gores them that he's doing anything at all in Kosovo," said Shirley Anne Warshaw, associate professor of political science at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania.

Polls are inconclusive about how much time the American public will give Clinton before it grows wary of his words. The Gallup Organization has consistently found that the public overwhelmingly approves of how Clinton conducts foreign policy.

At the same time, a survey taken March 19-21 found a divided country -- 43 percent favored and 45 percent opposed U.S. participation in the NATO attacks.

Much of the difference, said Gallup president Frank Newport, falls along partisan lines, suggesting Republicans will have little patience for any glitches.

Next

The recent history of presidents and their military initiatives suggests that the Republican sniping could dilute Clinton's support if the mission bogs down, since strikes like this tend to reinforce long-held feelings about presidents.

In 1980, for instance, the aborted helicopter rescue of American hostages held in Iran boosted President Carter's poll approval numbers at first. But as the hostage crisis dragged on, and Carter appeared helpless to do much, the numbers sank and the media often pointed to the failed raid as symbolic of his weakness.

Conversely, Democrats were highly critical at first of President Reagan's 1983 invasion of Grenada. But the strike proved popular, American casualties were minimal and Reagan was able to successfully use the brief war to illustrate how he was willing to stand up to aggressors.

Newport said the Kosovo mission could pose a political risk for Clinton.

"If it's perceived as being a quagmire, his numbers will go down," Newport said.

Clinton has tried mightily to explain his purposes in simple terms. He held a nationally televised news conference Friday, gave a lengthy speech to a labor union Tuesday and made two televised appearances Wednesday.

In the first, a five-minute appearance in the cramped White House briefing room, a stern looking Clinton tried to inoculate himself from finger-pointing, warning, "This action is not risk-free."

His facial expression never changed and his hands remained hidden behind the lectern. No need for non-verbal dramatics here; his body language said this was a solemn time.

"I have concluded that the dangers of acting now are clearly outweighed by the risks of failing to act," Clinton said.

Those risks, he said, including the prospect that "many more innocent people will die or be driven from their homes by the tens of thousands [and] the risks that the conflict will involve and destabilize neighboring nations."

Republicans were equally grave. "One of the many things that makes American unique is our tradition of being able to vigorously disagree," said the usually animated Nicholson, "and yet to bridge our differences when Americans are in harm's way."

But make no mistake: Nicholson's political troops are poised in case things go horribly sour. It could well be the legacy of the impeachment crisis that the political ground under Clinton remains wobbly.

It was only 24 hours earlier when Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., compared Tuesday's Senate authorization of airstrikes -- which passed 58-41 -- to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which gave President Johnson the ability to flood Vietnam with American troops.

"If this fails," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., "the Republicans are all in a position where they can say, 'I told you so.' "